At 11:31 97-04-18, Robin Fairbairns wrote:
Hans Aberg writes:
>Suppose you have a type1 font that offers all the glyphs you need.
>What is the (efficiency) advantage to making a composite virtual font,
>rather than simply using what you've got? In my experience (almost
>exclusively typesetting Latin-script text) the automatically-generated
>8r encoding of type1 gives me all I need.
>In such a case, it's a ludicrous *waste* of effort to create a new
>virtual font: unless you're wandering into typesetting of languages
>that aren't covered by 8r, to do such a thing would be ridiculously
I have all the time spoken about the math fints issue, where you always
tend to run out of symbols.
Are you discussing the text fonts all the time? :-)
>Michael Downes remarked that linear scaling is bad when the sizes get
>really small, which only really happens in maths; you then responded
>that we need a "bit of work" to add meta-ness to the existing fonts,
>and I responded to suggest that the "bit" was more likely to involve
>armies of designers and metafont hackers.
I knew intuitively that optical scaling is important in math, especially
for all those scriptsscripts, which it is really nice if you can use
without restriction in a math paper.
Michael Downes made this precise, by remarking, in effect, that it makes
only a difference for those scriptscripts (if your paper is in 10 pt);
It makes any difference, I did not know this, so I fekt it was very
interesting information myself.
>> In fact there seems to be two wholly different discussion topics going on
>I.e., you actually _knew_ all the above...
In general, I try to avoid polemics, so even if I put up some stuff, and
somebody would misunderstand what I try to say, and puts up a polemic
"correction", I would normally not bother following up on that. :-)
Basically it is what facts come up in the end, that is important.